South Dakota

[BigGuy]

No fossilized6s I do not believe it is the Holotype. I think that there is way too much similarity to not think the other two specimens are related somehow.

That is the best clue we have. The two most similar are late Cretaceous. The ribs match the radial symmetry is identical.

The reason I am stuck on the symmetry is that it defines entire phylums. If the symmetry is wrong then a scientist can go on to another phylum.

 

[Auspex]

My fundamental problem with it being an echinoderm is that there is no visible evidence of plates nor ossicles.

[BigGuy]

You Auspex are absolutely correct. As you so aptly pointed out there are six ribs converging on a point. I looked at the end views and yes it is six which rules out echinoderms. I quote from Wikipedia

"Echinoderms (Phylum Echinodermata from Ancient Greek, ἐχῖνος, echinos – "hedgehog" and δέρμα,derma – "skin")^[2] are a phylum of marine animals. The adults are recognizable by their (usually five-point) radial symmetry, and include such well-known animals as starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, andsea cucumbers, as well as the sea lilies or "stone lilies".^[3] Echinoderms are found at every ocean depth, from the intertidal zone to the abyssal zone. The phylum contains about 7000 living species,^[4] making it the second-largest grouping"

It was wishful thinking on my part. But I did notice on the SD fossil there is not true convergence on the end. It appears to be loops and the rays begin at a loop? Odd

[BigGuy]

Fossilized6s There are exception to the 5 fold symmetry. Some echinoderms do have six fold symmetry. 

[JohnJ]

Remember that almost all echinoderm fossils are preserved as a form of calcite. These appear to made of different minerals. That difference, and the overwhelming majority of echinoderms having 5 point symmetry, leaves the possibility of any one of the specimens in question being an echinoderm—extremely remote.

Still thinking about these things....

[BigGuy]

JohnJ - I agree

[Tethys]

Thank you to those who combined photos from all three threads. Side by side comparisons show both minor differences in form, and clear similarities; exactly as one would expect from fossils from the same animal in different geological ages. I am under the impression that these are all marine deposits, so a plant ID is unlikely. Since Narwhals had not yet evolved, I stand by the shark egg case as a possible ID. The very dark red-brown and black color of the fossils, combined with the bumpy texture that all three display to some degree leads me to suspect that these are pyritized. I have no idea what substance egg cases are chemically, but they certainly seem resilient enough that they could be fossilized under the right conditions.

[bone2stone]

Thank you to those who combined photos from all three threads. Side by side comparisons show both minor differences in form, and clear similarities; exactly as one would expect from fossils from the same animal in different geological ages. I am under the impression that these are all marine deposits, so a plant ID is unlikely. Since Narwhals had not yet evolved, I stand by the shark egg case as a possible ID. The very dark red-brown and black color of the fossils, combined with the bumpy texture that all three display to some degree leads me to suspect that these are pyritized. I have no idea what substance egg cases are chemically, but they certainly seem resilient enough that they could be fossilized under the right conditions.

Tethys,

I have posted this particular specimen on numerous occasions here and elsewhere.

I also have described the conditions as to its circumstance of location.

The one I found does not have the double terminated end as does BigGuy's.

Mine actually terminates into a "flattened" spiral and broken at the other end from an expanded

base.

The deposit it was found in has marine nearby and terrestrial, primarily marine.

The area where I found my specimen had carbonized wood and fragments of leaves

and little else. I believe that would be indications of stream deposition.

I do not think is was re-deposited from an upstream wash as it was found embedded in

the deposit containing the wood/leaf debris, broken end protruding.

Having it in hand does not increase chances of identification as I have had

some people with a great deal of expertise to look and they were just as baffled as I.

I stated before that an amateur has given me the best "guess" so far.

He theorized that it was a "spike" similar to the thumb spike of an Iguanodon.

But even that is just a guess.

I hold most of the expertise found in the members here in high regard that is why I brought it here.

I will continue to follow this thread and should I actually receive information as to it's origin I will be the first

to let TTF know what I learn.

Jess B.

This quest to have it Identified has been going on for over 15 years, and still it holds

it's mystery of just what the "#e!! it is.

Even though there are some physical similarities these three specimens are different

in that both of the others are two ended and mine has only one.

[Rockwood]

This post came to mind when I read John Long's description of the feeding behavior of a Queensland lungfish in The Rise of Fishes. They repeatedly extrude a pulpy tube of food before chewing it again. If I'm not mistaken saliva is a substance that helps facilitate fossilization. Could this explain the variation in the shape and extended temporal range of something like this ?

[abyssunder]

I want to add in a little parenthesis, that Mother Nature have such shape/form creatures like that showed in this thread,but much much smaller.For eg. gyrogonites(charophytes),but, with only 5 spirals:http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2009_M03/CG2009_M03_Plate_04.htm

[DPS Ammonite]

Hello Big Guy.

Do you think that your "fossil" could actually be a piece of metal or altered metal?

See this post that determined that a similar object was magnetic and was a metal artifact.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/61467-calamites-twisted/

[DavidLigo]

Gastropoda?Cerithium.? Узбекистан. Туронский. 

[bone2stone]

No consensus on any identification.

I had John have a hands on look at my specimen and there was no doubt ID not possible.

Even he had no idea.

Thank you John Jackson.

 

I still have this as a WTH is it anyway?

Hope I find out someday before I can no longer reply.

[Carl]

I was looking to post those new Paleoxyris specimens of DavidLigo's here but it seems he had the same idea! I certainly see the resemblance and feel these could be teh same kind of thing. Extraordinary!

[bone2stone]

On 11/1/2019 at 8:50 AM, Carl said:

I was looking to post those new Paleoxyris specimens of DavidLigo's here but it seems he had the same idea! I certainly see the resemblance and feel these could be teh same kind of thing. Extraordinary!

I originated this post hoping there would be some evidence of identification.

Lots of similarity with double terminated specimens but similar is where it ends.

My specimen is not and was never double terminated. I has all the appearance of being broken from a larger portion of whatever.

Consistency of the remains is as if it is a bony core of a "Spike".

I refer to the comment of a non-pro of it being a spike from an Iguanodon or perhaps a ankylosaur.

That my friends, this is where this ID stands for now.

Some of the best in Texas paleontology have yet to give a plausible ID.

Still looking for answers.

Thanks to all for their input and hopefully someone will find a complete specimen someday.

I know I will keep up my quest. Searching the Woodbine for answers.

 

Bone2stone

[Carl]

I have never seen any tetrapod bone with such a mathematically precise ornamentation. And the texture is nothing like any bone preservation I've yet seen. I find a bone spike incredibly hard to believe. But I do think the Late Cretaceous one you posted on 7 Aug 2012, the Mississippian one MissouriFossil posted on 17 Feb 2014, and the Late Cretaceous one BigGuy posted on 19 Feb 2015 have got to be related. And I have little trouble putting DavidLigo's new specimen in there as well. They appear to be some kind of ironstone precipitation, which I admit, I've never seen for Palseoxyris, but the gross morphology is strikingly consistent. Have a look at Fig. 4 in the attached paper. I am wondering if the discrepancy in detail could be from the way the ironstone encrusted the egg cases.

Foss Chondrichthyan Egg Capsules.pdf

[bone2stone]

1 minute ago, Carl said:

I have never seen any tetrapod bone with such a mathematically precise ornamentation. And the texture is nothing like any bone preservation I've yet seen. I find a bone spike incredibly hard to believe. But I do think the Late Cretaceous one you posted on 7 Aug 2012, the Mississippian one MissouriFossil posted on 17 Feb 2014, and the Late Cretaceous one BigGuy posted on 19 Feb 2015 have got to be related. And I have little trouble putting DavidLigo's new specimen in there as well. They appear to be some kind of ironstone precipitation, which I admit, I've never seen for Palseoxyris, but the gross morphology is strikingly consistent. Have a look at Fig. 4 in the attached paper. I am wondering if the discrepancy in detail could be from the way the ironstone encrusted the egg cases.

Foss Chondrichthyan Egg Capsules.pdf

 

Ask John Jackson what he thought of my specimen when he took a stab at identification. He got to handle it and so has other noted paleontologists.

Sorry but similar again does not make them the same.

It is not an "egg" structure.

It was solid bone with stepped internal structure before it fossilized.

 

[Carl]

26 minutes ago, bone2stone said:

 

Ask John Jackson what he thought of my specimen when he took a stab at identification. He got to handle it and so has other noted paleontologists.

Sorry but similar again does not make them the same.

It is not an "egg" structure.

It was solid bone with stepped internal structure before it fossilized.

 

Well, I doubt there would be any residual egg case structure (as opposed to egg structure) in the kind of preservation I am envisioning. But I certainly would love Ole John's thoughts! I certainly don't think similar = same.

[JohnJ]

I don't remember seeing any definitive bone structure on Jessy's specimen, and it was clearly not manmade.  The Iron based preservation would certainly obscure finer details.  Still, I would not rule out his specimen being the partial remains of a rare egg case fossil that was broken long after its formation.  It is definitely one cool fossil.

[TreyL]

Hi, first post on the site.

I'm a SD novice rockhound. I was doing some online searches to familiarize myself with local fossils and stumbled across photos from this thread. I have a smaller specimen that has similarities to the three posted here, found in the Cheyenne River valley near Red Shirt SD. The specimen has six ribs, and is metallic looking but not noticeably magnetic. There were many odd fragments of what I think is hematite iron ore in the same vicinity, and the specimen's composition looked the same to me; its odd spiral shape is what caught my eye. It's more of a fragment than others here, but I thought it might be of interest.

 

 

[GeschWhat]

Welcome to the forum @TreyL.  I had forgotten about this thread. Your specimen does look similar. These are such a mystery.